Is there a manual for yatagans?

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Zifir,
A most interesting question, and I think what Ariel was trying to say, without the political observations, is astutely correct as pertains to the use of the yataghan. Not that I agree or disagree with the comments on geopolitical history, its just that those type observations often set discussions on a separate course.
I completely agree with the period of use assessed by Ariel for the yataghan, which has been noted by weapons historians as yet another descendant of ancient kopis bladed forms. I also agree that it was essentially a private type of weapon, and certainly not produced for military rank and file. With that being the case, it is unlikely any formal training, nor documented material describing thier manner of use would exist. The only documented source of such descriptions may be found in period narratives, which certainly would not be likely to be found in western resources.

It would seem that the yataghan, typically carried through a sash, rather than in a mounted scabbard as worn with swords, was intended mostly for secondary use as in the melee or when firearms were spent and incoming forces overran the position. Though typically considered for dismounted use, it is known that certain yataghan influenced sabres were used by mounted auxiliary forces such as the Pandours after the mid 18th century. These were almost certainly used in virtually the same drawcut, slashing type action as most likely accorded to the yataghan, rather than any sword to sword combat implied by the term 'fencing'.

While the period of use of the yataghan had virtually expired parallel with that of the sword and the advent of the use of firearms later in the 19th century, it is known that it remained a particularly deadly weapon in combat through WWI and probably later with many Balkan forces. Possibly recorded material within resources from that period, especially concerning Albanian and Montenegrin forces, might reflect thier use of yataghans in combat.

All best regards,
Jim
j

[ariel]

i was not trying to provoke any "political' controversy. Just that I think that the use of particular weapons is a part and parcel of societal circumstances. This is just as applicable to armoured knights vs. bowmen in medieval Europe, or the firearms vs. sword later on.
Changes in societal structure bring about changes in military doctrine and, subsequently, weapons and equally powerful forces operate in the opposite direction.
The use of Yataghan as an "unregulated' weapon was not favourable for the development of rigid system for it's use. Would be interesting to find a real "yataghan manual" to show me the error of my ways.

[Zifir]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

It would seem that the yataghan, typically carried through a sash, rather than in a mounted scabbard as worn with swords, was intended mostly for secondary use as in the melee or when firearms were spent and incoming forces overran the position. Though typically considered for dismounted use, it is known that certain yataghan influenced sabres were used by mounted auxiliary forces such as the Pandours after the mid 18th century. These were almost certainly used in virtually the same drawcut, slashing type action as most likely accorded to the yataghan, rather than any sword to sword combat implied by the term 'fencing'.
j

This question came to my mind when I read in one of the chronicles that janissaries were used to duel each other with yatagans in a place called 'hendek,' literally meaning 'ditch' in Istanbul. (actually, I suspect that was a part of the surviving Byzantine moat in the Galata district of Istanbul).

I can't say i am much knowledgable in the etymology of the term 'fencing', also in english language as you can see , but if we include fighting with sabers in the category fencing, can't we use the term 'fencing' for yatagans also?